"The Gov. has stated that all local authorities must provide transit sites by 2011".
It does not say where or if the sites should be free!
Is this the British Gov. or the European mob?

This is such a controversial subject, but i'm of the mind that more social housing should be built for youngsters who can't get on the property ladder, then you could incorporate one or two houses for the travellers and they would have to live in society.
Why are they being treated to "special" measures when our own kids are having trouble getting mortgages because housing for folk like us who work hard, is a complete joke.
If the travellers don't want to participate within society, then society should NOT be paying for their comforts!!

There is more of us than them. Why is there a problem???

Suggest you have a look at this website-
http://www.communiti
es.gov.uk/housing/ho
usingmanagementcare/
gypsiesandtravellers
/

My Mum always said to me when times are hard cut out the waste. I think under current recessional fears and the credit crunch we can't afford to pay for these scroungers any more.

Most of us think it why not CUT OUT THE WASTE!

Perhaps what is needed is an article in The Echo that visits other sites and perhaps helps to lay to rest some miss-understandings and prejudices.

It wasn't until I started doing some research that I discovered details on Middlezoy transit site in Somerset. Some interesting facts are

(1) The travellers pay to use the site, this generates and annual income of £80,000. This covers the cost of running the site and managing unauthorised encampments in Somerset.

(2) There have been no unauthorised encampments within 15 miles of the site since it opened.

(3) There have been problems since it opened, however, there is a liason group between local people and the site management.

Ok it probably still isn't perfect, but at least it shows things are not as bad as some of the comments on here would have us believe.

As for the behaviour of the travellers, lets be honest, there are some people living permanently in this conurbation who will happily rob, steal and vandalise.

No matter which party gets in next time, sites will still have to be found.

Ed wrote:
Perhaps what is needed is an article in The Echo that visits other sites and perhaps helps to lay to rest some miss-understandings and prejudices. It wasn't until I started doing some research that I discovered details on Middlezoy transit site in Somerset. Some interesting facts are (1) The travellers pay to use the site, this generates and annual income of £80,000. This covers the cost of running the site and managing unauthorised encampments in Somerset. (2) There have been no unauthorised encampments within 15 miles of the site since it opened. (3) There have been problems since it opened, however, there is a liason group between local people and the site management. Ok it probably still isn't perfect, but at least it shows things are not as bad as some of the comments on here would have us believe. As for the behaviour of the travellers, lets be honest, there are some people living permanently in this conurbation who will happily rob, steal and vandalise.

Nice to see a balanced view Ed !
This confirms what I have said in previous threads, having been told this by local Councillors.
These sites should save travellers illegally using other sites in our area !

At a recent Forum meeting I suggested that Bournemouth and Poole Councils should combine their resources and create a site at Canford Park. Using the existing site at Mannings Heath as an overspill. Access would be from the A31. The travellers would not have to come into the Towns at all.

Staff would need to be employed to make sure they paid in advance also the caravans should be clamped during their stay, so that an inspection can be carried out before they leave in case of damage or a clean-up operation is necessary. This also must be paid for before they leave. I do not think they would wish to lose their caravans. We were informed at the Forum meeting that there is a pot of Government money for all this so the cost of the staff would not be paid for by the Council, although, ultimately by us the tax payer.

So the main reason for a legal site is that it'll prevent travellers illegally using other sites? What a precedent to set! Perhaps the council would like to provide me with a free parking space in Bournemouth, because otherwise I might go and park illegally.

Following on from Jean Day's very good idea, it seems also fairly obvious that the local conurbation of Poole and Bournemouth could save millions if they were joined into one council.Less Councillors,less buildings and some joined up thinking that might solve not onlt the Travellers problem but traffic schemes etc. etc.

Phil wrote:
So the main reason for a legal site is that it'll prevent travellers illegally using other sites? What a precedent to set! Perhaps the council would like to provide me with a free parking space in Bournemouth, because otherwise I might go and park illegally.

Phil - If you read my comment above you will see that in fact they are charged for using the site.

So the Council have already provided you the facility to avoid parking illegaly. It is called a car park for which you pay. For your money you are provided with a facility/service without burdening the taxpayer. Bit like the transit sites really.

Ed wrote:

Phil wrote:
So the main reason for a legal site is that it'll prevent travellers illegally using other sites? What a precedent to set! Perhaps the council would like to provide me with a free parking space in Bournemouth, because otherwise I might go and park illegally.

Phil - If you read my comment above you will see that in fact they are charged for using the site.

So the Council have already provided you the facility to avoid parking illegaly. It is called a car park for which you pay. For your money you are provided with a facility/service without burdening the taxpayer. Bit like the transit sites really.

Yeah, but if it were subsidised to the same extent, I'd probably have to pay about 50p a day!

Phil wrote:

Ed wrote:

Phil wrote: So the main reason for a legal site is that it'll prevent travellers illegally using other sites? What a precedent to set! Perhaps the council would like to provide me with a free parking space in Bournemouth, because otherwise I might go and park illegally.

Phil - If you read my comment above you will see that in fact they are charged for using the site. So the Council have already provided you the facility to avoid parking illegaly. It is called a car park for which you pay. For your money you are provided with a facility/service without burdening the taxpayer. Bit like the transit sites really.

Yeah, but if it were subsidised to the same extent, I'd probably have to pay about 50p a day!

(1) The travellers pay to use the site, this generates and annual income of £80,000. This covers the cost of running the site and managing unauthorised encampments in Somerset. This does not point to a subsidised site.

I have to admit that I also was fairly ignorant and prejudiced on this subject until I did some research.

Horseshoe common, not far from the Benefits office. Maybe the Upper Pleasure Gardens, the councillors could watch the travellers from their air conditioned offices. Then theres the land at Kings Park, just the job for the footie fan travellers.

I forgot! Dave Wells could find somewhere. He manages to build on the smallest plot and no doubt he has a spare plot here and there.

This covers the cost of running the site and managing unauthorised encampments in Somerset.

So they still have illegal camps to "manage".

Are you saying there is just one authorised site in Somerset, the Middlezoy one, covered by Sedgemoor District Council? I think not. I know of one in Taunton Deane District, which has become a permanent, (rather than transit) site, so transients still camp illegally. I assume that South Somerset District, West Somerset District and Mendip District each have their own sites.

I remember one year when a huge number of travellers went to the Glastonbury Festival and, when it finished, the Somerset Constabulary escorted a mile long convoy of them over the border into Devon and then left them for someone else to sort out. Most vehicles were unroadworthy, none that we saw passing had road tax discs, and I bet none were insured. But was anything done to inpect them, prosecute them or take them off the road - of course not. One rule for them another for us.

They set up an illegal camp, tore down fences and chopped down trees for fuel, killed animals for food that were owned by local farmers and stole vegetables from smallholders' fields, including mine. By the time an eviction order had been obtained they'd dispersed but had wrecked the area and deprived locals of income. This was a large-scale hippy invasion, but smaller traveller groups behaved the same way.

The only ones who behaved in a civilised manner were a group of Romany Gypsies and a couple of old-fashioned men-of-the-road (tramps in the old sense), who knocked at our door and asked if they could have some hot water to make tea and if they could sleep in our barn.

When is Gypsy not a Gypsy = when it's a traveller. Originally from Ireland known as Irish Tinkers who came to the UK to find loopholes to set up illegal camps here.
Not all choose to be on the road in order to claim full benefits some now live in houses but still cause havoc.

Charlie, I have read many a story about Gypsies have done This, and Travellers have done that, but the papers fail to tell the owe story that most of what go on with the dirt and rubbish that is left behind is from the New Age Traveller (hippies from the 60 and 70)their own people. May be you lot could have a word with them and ask them to get there act together and not leave the places that they stay on in such a bad state.

"They set up an illegal camp, tore down fences and chopped down trees for fuel, killed animals for food that were owned by local farmers and stole vegetables from smallholders' fields, including mine. By the time an eviction order had been obtained they'd dispersed but had wrecked the area and deprived locals of income. This was a large-scale hippy invasion, but smaller traveller groups behaved the same way."


"I have to admit that I also was fairly ignorant and prejudiced on this subject until I did some research."

Surely Cllr Beasley should have said 'least worst' option to be grammatically correct?

Would it not be good if we had purpose built sites, and that they were used as intended. However, regardless of what has been said in favour of purpose built sites, whether from locals, or from what Councillors said at meetings (remember, they run by rules from government).

Lets say we have a purpose built site somewhere in Bournemouth, of some 30 - 40 pitches, and it was managed so that everyone using it would park correctly, use the facilities correctly, etc etc etc.

Now the residents, Travellers coming over for summer work. Use to not paying their way, and here to make money, and not to give it back in taxes, rents,etc. The New Age Travellers, set their lives on living off the land as free as possible.

So tell me, where do these people get the money to pay the Taxes, Rents etc. They are set in their ways, and will move on to find an "illegal" site, as they have been doing for many many years.

Councils across the country and indeed here in Bournemouth cannot make them pay for rubbish clearing, parking fees on car parks, damages to fields and gates, etc etc etc. So how the hell are they going to get money of them for legitimate reasons.

Capacity. Sites for 30 - 40 pitches. How many do you have visit our town and surrounding areas through out the year. A lot more than 30 - 40, which again will mean there will not be enough room in the in, therefore those who cannot get in will camp elsewhere "illegally".

We as a Town, and our Town Council should be concerned more with housing for our own, in particular the young people trying to get on the ladder. Using money to help with other issues here today on these pages. Swimming for the young and elderly, heating, fares, and much more. Giving back to those who have over the years given to the town. Not giving out our money to help those who have no intentions of giving back.

The scheme is ludicrous, it will be a failure, and it is not needed. This government will be out by next year. We have to 2011 to find a place. There is a lot more that can be done before then, and should before entertaining this stupid idea.

I wonder if the good people out there have ever taken the time to really see what the councils have done to the Gypsies and Travellers over the years with taken their lands away from them, their homes, pushing them into houses that they did not want (which made them ill and they are still suffering to this day) breaking their families up because of the ones who could not face going in to houses.
In the 50,60 and 70 there were hundreds of gypsies family,may be even thousands then who own their own land in and around Poole, Bournemouth, Ferndown, Westmoors, Ringwood etc,etc,etc, that the councils took from them(compulsory purchase,if you were lucky) and built on (where was the green belt then)their land, a few council houses but mostly private houses,etc,etc, they made millons of pounds off the Gypsies because they could not read or write, did not know their rights,and were treated like second class citizens.

Latest Odds on where the travellers' site will be:
5/6 Townsend
6/4 Anywhere else in Bournemouth
50/1 Westbourne
500/1 Next door to Cllr Beesley or Cllr Charon!

1000000000000000000/
1
next door to any cllr

John, I bet you 100/1 that you have a Gypsy for a neighbour, or you work with one!!!.
Anyway I say ta ta got a company to run.

daisy wrote:
John, I bet you 100/1 that you have a Gypsy for a neighbour, or you work with one!!!. Anyway I say ta ta got a company to run.

daisy
Sorry, like HM Government, I am reluctant to take your money....but as a matter of fact, I do have a Gypsy as my neighbour!!!!!

Daisy,
You write a very emotive story about the "hardships" suffered by the gypsies and travellers way back in the 50s- 60s and 70s.
"Compulsory purchase if you were lucky"?
The only reason compulsory purchase was not used was if the people camped on the land did not own it!
That was a lot of people!
Have you any idea of the no. of people who cheered when their neighbourhood was no longer suffering with the "carryings-on" of your kinfolk?
This was not racism (or any other ism), it was just ordinary people trying to live their life in peace!
I know I lived through that time!

Would it not help if the Echo were to actually do a bit of 'journalism' and tell us what obligations local councils have with regard to 'travellers'.
Who drew up and enforces these regulations and if they can be challenged.
It's a bit pointless shouting at councillors if their hands are tied.
A bit of clarification please Daily Echo.

Daisy have you really done your research on Gypsies and Travellers?
They are quite different people.
Furthermore did the settlers you speak of pay for the land they occupied or as usual just claimed it as their own.
I have much experience living next door to a family you say were forced into a house. Oh don't worry they are having a ball on benefits and laughing. I suffered abuse for over three years that made ill I can tell you.

Quote I have much experience living next door to a family you say were forced into a house. Oh don't worry they are having a ball.

Reply Just take a good look at the shear devastation caused by housuing such types in the Holmsley Area of the New Forest.

Luxury properties lay side beside with discarded washing machines and all manner of rubbish strewn out over the front lawns . Rags for curtains and children running a mock.

These such persons who have no respect for others nor themselves should be housed in the Midlands in the poorest of areas one can find.

Why should high value land be given to such people at our expense?

Steady Karl, you are advocating ghettos!
What is needed is simply an even handed approach to what is required by the VOTING populace!

lets face it - bournemouth council have not really wanted any travellers site under their juristiction. We have had travellers coming to Bournemouth year after year for as long as I can remember, and each time there are lots of complaints, the coucil the serve papers to move them on, they leave a load of mess, the council then out big heavy barriers to try and prevent it happening again but dont really follw through on trying to sort the matter out once and for all !
A few years back there was the situation at the Littledown field, I cant remember exact details, but I know they just moved from one place to another in Bourmemouth, Kings Park and Hengistbury Head, and that was just the ones I remember ! There was a big to-do about it - understandably, before I get my head bitten off on here ;0) - and it all got sorted in the end... but then what... was it forgotten about, or just swept under the rug in the hope that it wouldnt happen again for a while? Im not sure.. I havent looked into it very deepy... but it just strikes me as a little unfair to everyone concerned... residents and travellers, that there is still nothing in place to sort this situation out.
Although it is good that something is being done about it now.. will this actually come to frutition this time?

I don't want to turn this forum into a personal thing however the family I had the misfortune of living next door to lived in a very nice house, neither worked, he claimed benefit due to a work injury but dug up his garden and rode a tractor most days, infact fitter than most, then for a few weeks in the year when his check up was due (no doubt). He used a walking stick.
I had abuse shouted to me daily through a window. I could not sit in the garden before he came reved up his chainshaw at the side of the fence. Her only language was F Off and although I called the police on a couple of occassions once after a physical attack nothing could be done. Without video evidence the Police have a difficult task.
I ended up selling my property below it's value to get out. I really hope the Government try to do something and stopping people like Travellers who don't pay their way in life would be a good start.
Nothing in this life is for free and people that refuse to pay their way should be punished.
I might add that the children they seem to accumulate is sometimes curious. Some seemingly seem to have lost mothers and I sometimes wonder if they are infact claiming foster children benefit.
This is in excess of £250 a week x by 5 and not a bad little earner.

Posted by: laurie marsh, australia on 1:35pm today

Quote Steady Karl, you are advocating ghettos!

Reply Indeed I am laurie .

We already have a socially divided system in most all countries laurie divided by that which one can or cannot afford.

Unfortunately here (in the UK) as in many other countries those of society that could never normally interact and disturb the upper regions of society are doing so because of inherited wealth.

This element is a very destructive force as they have no respect for those around them. Much like the Gypos yet true Romany Gypsies I do like as they have an order of respectability.

One of my earliest true friends, was indeed a Romany Gypsy lad, who taught me much about thier way of life together with a wealth of knowledge as to Tracking and Herbal medicines.

In point of fact one of the element as to just one of thier medicines, made over 8 Billion dollars in just 4 days of trading, it broke all records at the time.

Yet this is the first time that information has been released.

laurie marsh wrote:
Steady Karl, you are advocating ghettos! What is needed is simply an even handed approach to what is required by the VOTING populace!

apologies for my bad typing ! :)

Amazing how Council priorites have changed. I remember when travelling to work at Upton ,over the old Wareham Road bridge watching the Council with tractors and lorries dragging the Gypsies/Travellers off the Canford Heath site before they started to develop the area. Pity they are all so P.C. now.

" Pity they are all so P.C. now."

What on earth has that to do with poliical correctness ? It might help if a few on here actually bothered to check out what that phrase means rather than bleating it out at every opportunity.
Also check out local council's legal obligations while they are at it.

(1) The travellers pay to use the site, this generates and annual income of £80,000. This covers the cost of running the site and managing unauthorised encampments in Somerset. This does not point to a subsidised site.

Really? But then there are already hundreds of commercial campsites that the travellers could use… if they are prepared to (1) pay the going rate and (2) leave the facilities in a decent state. And if this is indeed the case, why the need for council-run sites at all?

Another thing: if there is a council site, is anyone permitted to use it? I mean, can I roll up in a motorhome and pay whatever they're charging to park it there? If not, why not?

Phil, the kids would smash your kit to pieces before you'd even got out of the car.

I made the mistake once of taking a shortcut past the mannings heath encampment when I was walking home in the 80's.
Little kids, at least 10 of them, ages 4 to 10 pelted me with stones and threw a bottle as I ran down the road, the public right of way, attempting to protect myself..
It's mob rule in these places, the police are powerless to stop anything that goes on when travellers bandy together, and I wouldn't mind if the rest of society was so lax, but we have to put up all manner of incursions on our personal liberties, cameras, fines by Tesco, infinitely spiralling taxes and incessent trash culture, teenagers stabbing each other while drunk and making areas of the town a no-go area, so time's up I'm afraid, there isn't room for your merry little anarchic enclaves in town any more.
Travellers please get ready to enter the Big Brother house.

daisy wrote:
I wonder if the good people out there have ever taken the time to really see what the councils have done to the Gypsies and Travellers over the years with taken their lands away from them, their homes, pushing them into houses that they did not want (which made them ill and they are still suffering to this day) breaking their families up because of the ones who could not face going in to houses.
In the 50,60 and 70 there were hundreds of gypsies family,may be even thousands then who own their own land in and around Poole, Bournemouth, Ferndown, Westmoors, Ringwood etc,etc,etc, that the councils took from them(compulsory purchase,if you were lucky) and built on (where was the green belt then)their land, a few council houses but mostly private houses,etc,etc, they made millons of pounds off the Gypsies because they could not read or write, did not know their rights,and were treated like second class citizens.

Daisy, I have no problem with genuine gypsies. I like most people in the town, have a problem with the travellers who show no respect or consideration for the communities in which they park their incursions. They leave foeces for our children to walk in, they leave mountains of waste and rubbish for our councils to clear at council tax payers' expense. They show an arrogance that is second to none and we as a society pander to them! We "assess their needs", deliver their benefits, care for their sick and then, when they move on, we clean up their sh**t

Phil wrote:

(1) The travellers pay to use the site, this generates and annual income of £80,000. This covers the cost of running the site and managing unauthorised encampments in Somerset. This does not point to a subsidised site.

Really? But then there are already hundreds of commercial campsites that the travellers could use… if they are prepared to (1) pay the going rate and (2) leave the facilities in a decent state. And if this is indeed the case, why the need for council-run sites at all?

Another thing: if there is a council site, is anyone permitted to use it? I mean, can I roll up in a motorhome and pay whatever they're charging to park it there? If not, why not?

Ha! very good point Phil..

Being a traveller myself i can understand everyones point of view. The travellers who camp ilegally are nothing to do with us local travellers who have found a place we like and have been here for many years. The only trouble that is caused are the ones who come and go mainly IRISH may i ad but irish or not you cannot class everyone the same. Everyone needs a home even people on the streets but i cannot see no one moaning about the mess they leave in shop door ways. we pay tax in our jobs road tax national insurance ect. We are all the same apart from a name. We all bleed, hurt, feel pain, sleep, eat, talk ect so please what is all the fuss about. I do not agree with taking down cherry tree for a site i am actually very against that. There are plenty of other places that sites can be put!!!

Once again, the Editor of PRAVDA has censored the comments after No 24th, about 1hr ago...
Read ...
Council stunned by traveller site quota
By Katie Clark
(published @ 1:02pm today)

Daisy, Sandbanks..was it something we said?

So when this site is found, can myself and my family bring the caravan down and stay for a while. Save on bills at home, I can leave my rubbish for the council to clear up and when ive had enough I can go home!!

smiler wrote:
So when this site is found, can myself and my family bring the caravan down and stay for a while. Save on bills at home, I can leave my rubbish for the council to clear up and when ive had enough I can go home!!

i think that you should be able to pull on with your caravan. I o not see why travellers and yourself cant mix. But the rubbish business does not count for us all. As a matter of fact I think it is disgusting.

queenbee21 wrote:
Being a traveller myself i can understand everyones point of view. The travellers who camp ilegally are nothing to do with us local travellers who have found a place we like and have been here for many years. The only trouble that is caused are the ones who come and go mainly IRISH may i ad but irish or not you cannot class everyone the same. Everyone needs a home even people on the streets but i cannot see no one moaning about the mess they leave in shop door ways. we pay tax in our jobs road tax national insurance ect. We are all the same apart from a name. We all bleed, hurt, feel pain, sleep, eat, talk ect so please what is all the fuss about. I do not agree with taking down cherry tree for a site i am actually very against that. There are plenty of other places that sites can be put!!!

If we have to have these sites, I still think ones in rural locations are probably the only answer.
If the comments about travellers paying rent to stay on these sites are correct, then how about a returnable deposit paid when you turn up and returned when the site is left in a reasonable state?

daisy wrote:
I wonder if the good people out there have ever taken the time to really see what the councils have done to the Gypsies and Travellers over the years with taken their lands away from them, their homes, pushing them into houses that they did not want (which made them ill and they are still suffering to this day) breaking their families up because of the ones who could not face going in to houses.
In the 50,60 and 70 there were hundreds of gypsies family,may be even thousands then who own their own land in and around Poole, Bournemouth, Ferndown, Westmoors, Ringwood etc,etc,etc, that the councils took from them(compulsory purchase,if you were lucky) and built on (where was the green belt then)their land, a few council houses but mostly private houses,etc,etc, they made millons of pounds off the Gypsies because they could not read or write, did not know their rights,and were treated like second class citizens.

treated like second class citizens,how dare you put them so high up the list,you say the gypsies were exploited because of there lack of education,that is rubbish they chose not to enter the civalised world,act like thieving scum get treated as.